Talk:United Kingdom of Britannia
Sun Ling, I was wondering if you wanted to collaborate with me on Brittania, since my friend wanted me to make an article of the same name. --Richmondappleeater 03:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Sure, I don't have that much time to write everything up anyway. The only thing important is the national policy, which is a lot more fierce and pride-oriented than the original UK. Sun Ling 23:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Woah Woah hold your horses, both you users are the controllers of the Empire of Britannia?(It's Britan right?)Tamayomari 04:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC) We don't know yet. --Richmondappleeater 04:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Richmond, I'll create it whether this war succeeds or not, but you can rule it provided that you stick by policy...though we could also try to share rule (Dividing into two zones of control, UK/Canada and Australia/New Zealand). The Union of Everett did not invade Canada. The provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Foundland and Labrador seceded on their own accord. You make it sound like Everett stole the land hostiley. Canada was even compensated for their losses. United Planets 11:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC) That's fairly difficult to believe to say the least, considering that Quebec was given the chance in a referendum to become a separate nation and yet overwhelmingly voted against it. But I guess since you were the first one, I ought to go with it, and I will. However, just because the Confederate States of America was perfectly willing during prewar negotiations to compensate the USA and the USA was perfectly willing to pay for the southwest prior to the Mexican War does not mean that enmity was removed--even though Mexico was compensated for the loss of California, New Mexico, and Arizona, unfriendliness persisted until regime change happened. Compensation for almost 50% of the Canadian Population (not including the land taken by Cascadia) would have to be ridiculously high. In Conclusion, I'll alter the country description, but just pointing out that does not in any way removes any enmity between nations. Sun Ling 19:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC) If you were going to complain about any nation and how they acquired their territories then I'd go after the New Japanese Empire. In all reality, how did Japan, alone, take over China and North Korea (world powers, one a nuclear capable nation), South Korea (completely avoiding war with the U.S.), Mongolia, Kazakhstan and invading Russia (avoiding nuclear eradication). Or why Tibet would willingly join with Taiping when they were finally free after the destruction of China proper. Or why Canada, Australia and New Zealand would surrender themselves to Britain. Really, it's just based on the land we want for our nations and s**t happens. United Planets 20:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC) I argued with a friend-over-the-internet of mine (whose friend IRL had apparently formed China) about the impossibility of it, and though I certainly disliked it, I went along with it as I did with yours (and p.s. BOTH are nuclear capable as far as I know). The US was obviously embroiled in the creation of Everett, especially considering you withdrew all "Everetti" personnel from outside (which would include America, since, at its founding, the units which were American and units which were Everetti woudl remain fairly ambiguous. The Japanese invasion of Mongolia and Kazakhstan is not entirely inconceivable, especially considering Japan's experience and victories on the Manchurian front against Russia before and discontent in the East with Russia's policies (which favor the industrialized west over the agrarian east). Russia, while having a strong military would expect attacks possibly from the Bering Strait and in its western borders. Eastern Russia has a low population density, and, in comparison to the border guards at the Korean border, the Bering Strait and the West, its weapons there would be fairly obsolete, its main strength being the buffer zones created by the former Soviet Republics of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Krygzystan (misspelled, but it's hard anyway). With its massive nuclear arsenal, a nation such as Russia probably would not expect an attack, and even though Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev may seem like sly politicians in the west, they are certainly patriots, and the deployment of nuclear weapons on one's own soil would be like America dropping a bomb in the Sonora--even if it didn't harm anyone, the very idea would sweep the president from office. Tibet would join the Taiping Empire because it was the least dangerous. India, despite allowing the Dalai Lama to stay, would be the most likely to engage in a nuclear war with Pakistan, something that Tibet would definitely NOT want to get embroiled with. Ethnically, Southeast Asia has far more in common with Tibet than Tibet has with Asia, and since most of the founding nations of Taiping (Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, South Korea) were fairly democratic and open (Thailand allowed their own prime minister to be ousted purely because a large amount of the urban population wanted it) in comparison to the Japanese Empire (whose repressive retaliation to the Chinese Liberation Front is the norm instead of the rarity). Thus, Tibet, having no military of its own, would be most likely to join with the country most willing to accept them, the Taiping Empire. Canada, Australia and New Zealand were all former commonwealths of Britain, and even now owe ceremonial allegiance to the Queen. Such a humiliation of the Zagreb Accord would be a blow to all the commonwealths, especially those that have retained close ties with Britain (the aforementioned nations). Despite not being related to the war in any way, some of the most enthusiastic forces during World War I and II were Canadian and Australian Forces. Especially considering that in the formation of the Empire, none of these nations had any real political upheaval except a common National Parliament, it would make sense that they would unite to restore the pride of the British Royalty. On the other hand, nations such as India and what is now Cryseria, which both suffered injustices under the British, would not be willing to help, especially considering its own troubles. I'm not arguing against what you did in retrospect, I'm just pointing out that I have fairly realistic reasons for my actions. Sun Ling 20:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Sun Ling, do you know the Cascadia did not start in U.S. territory and then annex part of of British Columbia? By the Way, I would like to have good relations with this nation, will you accept? Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Britannia attempts to play a mediator role between the Asian Nations and the West anyway, so I don't mind at all...but can you rephrase what you said before? I don't quite follow. Sun Ling 01:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC) :Oregon, Washington and British Columbia seceded from their mother countries (Us or Canada), seceded Oregon and Washington did not annex British Columbia, it was the British Columbian's choice to secede and then join together. Besides, the loyalists in all three territories left Cascadia, so there's no reason to be angry. Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main 19:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I've already explained this to him about Everett and Canada. There are still things on that page that need to be changed such as the part Cascadia-seized and Everetti-seized land which is not true. Everett and Cascadia did not invade and seize land. Those areas willingly, on their own accord, seceded and joined the new nations. Just say "Canada", you don't need to add "minus seized land". Other problems are how that everyone in military and their families left the seceding territories to stay with Canada which is silly, sure some people will leave to stay with Canada but for all the military to leave is strange. Also, a minor issue is how it says that Britain had helped Everett with creating Liberty which is not true. United Planets 20:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC) :Everyone agreed because they didn't like Everett or Cascadia, lol, just kidding. And seemingly it is unrealistic, but it also is not unrealistic because countries can withdraw their troops from a country's territory. Surprisingly to me, Canadian provinces joined Everett, I don't see why, can you explain that United Planets? Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main 21:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC) They don't have to withdraw. They are citizens of the seceding province which means they go with it. Canada loses control of those troops, it's up to the individual soldier whether or not he or she will stay. As for why they seceded, same reason why half of British Columbia seceded into Cascadia, some sort of disagreement or problem. I never specified. United Planets 22:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) :Then wouldn't they create their own country, instead of joining Everett? Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main 23:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC) *British Colombia has never considered leaving Canada at any point, even with George Bush and his cadre and all, it's very difficult to accept that suddenly, the majority of British Colombians suddenly decided they didn't like Canada when they've been happy under it for the last...say...300 years. While I do not dispute that you controlled it, you can't expect Britannia to be happy about it or to believe that they seceded. You have to understand, this is from Britannia's point of view. Anyhow, if you must somehow say that these areas simply seceded, then I will be just as unrealistic in suggesting that the Canadian forces sided completely with the original government of Canada. You say that the Army leaving wholeheartedly is silly? Then I say that all of Canada suddenly deciding it wants to secede is silly. Simply expecting people to pay for it and then expecting people who don't want it to move out is pretty silly as well, nevermind the fact that people who want to hold onto the land (which is the majority apart from maybe Quebec, which it is possible to excuse a secession) would probably fight to remain part of Canada. I've given up in fighting against surrealism, but I'll be just as unrealistic about it. Sun Ling 00:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC) :I know its silly but lets say British Columbia suddenly thought it was in danger of natural disasters and being partially neglected by England (by not putting any effort into helping), so it seceded and joined Washington and Oregon, forming Cascadia. I don't think the whole army leaving is silly. It's fine, tell that to United Planets. Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main 01:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Adoption Could I prehaps take over this nation and just put my Canada and Australia pages to work as sub-entities with this page? -Sunkist- 03:58, June 9, 2011 (UTC) It would have to be completely over-hauled to match with current Future World 2.0 history and information and properly written as a standard nation page with infobox, etc. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 07:28, June 9, 2011 (UTC) I was going to make this more of an Commonwealth Pride thing, with India, Nigeria, and South Africa joining. -Sunkist- 11:40, June 9, 2011 (UTC) Would that be okay, or is that too much, it would count as all my points? -Sunkist- 11:41, June 9, 2011 (UTC) You'd be controlling a massive area of land, military power, economic power and population. I'd cut it down to how it was originally, Australia, UK, Canada and New Zealand. India isn't part of the Commonwealth and after the horrid things the British did to them, they wouldn't join back. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 11:50, June 9, 2011 (UTC) India is part of the Commonwealth of Nations, and the fact that the provinces will have complete control over they're own government, they will have the choice of leaving or staying. They will share a Military, a Currency, a Head of State and a flag. Each province will have the devlopment of cultural laws and settings. Recently India and the United Kingdom are becoming the 'New Special Relationship' -Sunkist- 11:58, June 9, 2011 (UTC) I promise not to do anything crazy, I'll mostly be developing on poverty in India and Nigeria. -Sunkist- 12:18, June 9, 2011 (UTC) Seeing on the map on the Future World Nation page, I won't be allowed to use India, South Africa or Nigeria? -Sunkist- 14:02, June 10, 2011 (UTC) You could use them it's just a large land area to use but because you'll be having economic problems and lots of issues by adding Nigeria and India in, I'll allow it but Germany is no longer shared because the FGC and OSFA have been disconnected. You will have to get rid of Germany eventually until then I count it as 3 + 3 points but Germany must go. As to maintain fairness, Britannia cannot be used to help if a Germany-NGE war continues. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 14:11, June 10, 2011 (UTC) I know, if you look on the page you can see alot of programs are being cut to help Nigeria and India. I've already took Germany away. And I agree to the last thing.-Sunkist- 14:13, June 10, 2011 (UTC) I'm really happy to see Britain in the game but I'm afraid that this nation is too big. A nation controlling the huge national resourdes of Australia, Nigeria and Canada, the human force of India and the tech of Britain, Canada and Australia will be extremately powerful.--BIPU 17:09, June 10, 2011 (UTC) Friendship In another universe, The New Japanese Empire and the Empire of Britannia were quite close allies. I would like to extend the hand of friendship to the Empire of Britannia in this day and age. What do you say? Woogers - talk ( ) 14:18, June 10, 2011 (UTC) Sure, you seem as one of the only nations that don't use droids to make all of its products. I'd love to take this hand of friendship. ---Sunkist- 14:21, June 10, 2011 (UTC) Excellent, I hope that this can be the start of something great. Woogers - talk ( ) 14:22, June 10, 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure of any nations that do use droids to make all of their products. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 14:39, June 10, 2011 (UTC) Large majority/ use as labor/ used in military (as in completly takes the human out of the equation)---Sunkist- 14:41, June 10, 2011 (UTC) Europa uses robots (mostly robotic arms) for mass assembly, but hand-made is much more common. HORTON11 14:42, June 10, 2011 (UTC) Like I said, no one uses robots as the majority of their work force. About 90% - 95% of my workforce is human. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 14:53, June 10, 2011 (UTC) In the NGE, droids are banned :P Kunarian 15:27, June 10, 2011 (UTC) It also has alot of major drawbacks, my projects and money will be going to mostly helping poverty levels in India and Nigeria, as also trying to bring more sex education to South Africa, Nigeria and India. My space program and military is very crippled right now, and our stocks are not doing so well, as with our currency. -Sunkist- 17:18, June 10, 2011 (UTC) What is your problem with droids? They are not going to kill all humans in a revolt. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:33, June 10, 2011 (UTC) Are you sure? :) --BIPU 17:38, June 10, 2011 (UTC) Ment that as a response to BIPU, about droids..I just think they are a disater waiting to happen. -Sunkist- 17:40, June 10, 2011 (UTC) New Royal Family I was hoping to install a new Monarch, instead of have the old family. Any way, I'm still wanting to respect history and make it a hot mess, any ideas I could achieve this? -Sunkist- 22:30, June 10, 2011 (UTC) You could invite a member of another Family, such as German nobility (strong connections to UK monarchy) or even the Europan one. HORTON11 22:38, June 10, 2011 (UTC) Why dont you want the Windsors? You could use the old scotish monarchy, House of Stuart --BIPU 23:01, June 10, 2011 (UTC) Or you can elect them like I did ROFL! -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • ) 23:16, June 10, 2011 (UTC) Its the fact I see everyone else get entirely new leaders, as with they're monarchs. It would just seem weird to Roleplay as the current Queen. -Sunkist- 23:21, June 10, 2011 (UTC)